Listening to my favourite local business podcast last week got me thinking about how narratives shape reality. The host and a business titan were discussing the country’s current narrative. They were debating what’s being done to nudge the economy onto a more prosperous path.
The titan said “sentiment is causal” which is a concept baked into economic theory. If there’s a belief (sentiment) that prices are going to go up, consumers buy more to beat the price increases. This drives demand and ultimately causes prices to go up. Sentiment is based on what stories are being told. Stories around the braai, on social media, in the mainstream news, by politicians, investment houses and companies.
On a superficial level, it should be possible to repeat a narrative, or story often enough until it inevitably manifests as reality. That’s clearly not true. If it were, loadshedding would be history by now. As an effective persuasive theory, it does hold water though, and narratives can lead to outcomes. People need to repeatedly hear something to understand and believe it’s possible.
But we don’t change our minds very easily. If you’re dead certain about something, challenging ideas are easily dismissed. But, where there’s doubt and curiosity, there’s fertile ground for persuasion. Narratives that shape reality therefore need to be rooted in an understanding of where the audience’s heads are at.
Knowing how the message is going to land is a useful starting point. The next step is to shape the narrative to create the outcome. Although the messaging must be unambiguous, getting there should be an honest process. Superficial thinking and concepts spawn superficial narratives. These will sail through a mind without pausing for thought.
Let me share an example of an alternative narrative, which is essentially an economic theory. Back in 1891, economist David Frederick Schloss held the view that the idea that there is a finite amount of work (or labour) in an economy is a fallacy. His theory, the “Lump of Labour Fallacy” refutes the notion that a lump, or ‘pie’ of work exists which is divided up among workers.
The theory was a rebuttal against the idea that reducing the number of hours employees are allowed to labour during the working day would lead to a reduction in unemployment. The term is also commonly used to describe the belief that increasing labour productivity, immigration, or automation causes an increase in unemployment (Wikipedia).
The theory came up on a recent Freakonomics podcast in which the future of work in an AI-enabled world was discussed. Illustrating the new kinds of jobs that AI will create, an AI prompt engineer was interviewed on the show. The show followed a narrative that AI can enable a better world, rather than destroy it. But it’s not just telling a different story, it’s basing a story on lived experience, or a theory that can be believed, that makes it stick.
What outcomes are your narratives creating? Have you built your reputation as a credible source worth listening to? If you need some fresh thinking, talk to us.
